That's not the point of the example, really. It's about personal interest vs group interest. Even if I know that the area is overfished and know that it will have an environmental impact later down the line I would still have no personal reason to stop it.

It's against my personal interest not to buy those fish.

It's not. Not being able to buy fish in two years is a personal reason to stop it. Public shaming for causing the problem is a personal reason to stop it. More to the point, not wanting to ruin the environment is a personal reason to stop it.

Being a rational actor does not mean being rational-and-not-emotional. It does not mean being rational-and-not-moral. Again, as with perfect information, this is a terminology issue. You are misusing "rational" in this context. Here it does mean making the right decision.

Snorri wrote:

It's not about a single choice, it's about a situation where the best/rational choice for all parties gives a sub-optimal result. In the example of an overfished area: the best result would be one where we all stop overfishing. But if I were to do that alone then there would be no change except that I would get screwed out of fish.

Which is a single choice. You are talking about the danger of not getting fish from your single choice. The market does not work that way.

Alternately, if you are trying to mean it as a series of choices, then you are simply wrong about the rational choice being suboptimal. In series-of-choices games, cooperation is often more profitable than selfishness, and therefore more rational. I'm sure the wiki article about Prisoner's Dilemma would link to series games, and how suddenly the solution isn't what you think it is when you complexify your model.

Snorri wrote:

Or say taxes were voluntary. Obviously taxes give a great benefit to society.

Are you insane? What worse tactic is there than saying "Obviously taxes are great" when we're talking about libertarians? Taxation is not the only way to build roads and schools. And you may not enjoy the benefits of roads and schools if you didn't contribute. This is all based on a huge set of assumptions that don't work in this context.

Snorri wrote:

If you need an anti-cancer drug but the only drug you can buy is one from a company that, i dunno, has abhorrent factory conditions you really don't have much of a choice.

Yeah, that's pretty shitty. I would hate to be in that situation.

So what does that have to do with market decisions? Oh, right. You're saying that because some people are forced by some companies to use a product, we should make sure everyone feels the same sting by making the government more oppressive. Got it.

Snorri wrote:

My point is a reductio ad absurdem. Because what I said is the exact opposite of what Libertarians frequently claim.

Demonstrating that the opposite of what someone says is absurd is not an effective argument against what that someone is saying.

Snorri wrote:

They blow off the difficulty of making a market decision but act like it's almost impossible to move to another country.

Moving to another country is often impossible, and it is definitely more difficult than making a market decision.

Snorri wrote:

Libertarians seem to forget that we came to the position we are in now through trial and error.

Some of them do. But that has next to nothing to do with ideals.

Snorri wrote:

That we moved away from a freer market because it sucked. Minimal government and a super-free market actually made us less free.

Sucked compared to what? Less free than what? And less free how?

And the libertarian response to the freer market sucking is that it sucked because it inherited too many flaws from monarchies, and because you're comparing it to a now wealthier world. Now that technology has vastly improved travel, education and availability of market information, it would work quite a lot better now.

Snorri wrote:

You had company towns

I told you they made those up._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

It's not. Not being able to buy fish in two years is a personal reason to stop it. Public shaming for causing the problem is a personal reason to stop it. More to the point, not wanting to ruin the environment is a personal reason to stop it.

Being a rational actor does not mean being rational-and-not-emotional. It does not mean being rational-and-not-moral. Again, as with perfect information, this is a terminology issue. You are misusing "rational" in this context. Here it does mean making the right decision.

So your argument is just tautological?

Rational actors always make the right decision because rational actors always make the right decision? And making the right decision is also always "right" without any explanation of what it is? So saying: "fuck yall, gonna get my fish" is the right decision or....?

Look, if you're gonna go with such silliness then what is the point? You don't solve the dilemma of a tragedy of the commons with magic.

Quote:

Which is a single choice. You are talking about the danger of not getting fish from your single choice. The market does not work that way.

Pray tell how the market works then.

Quote:

Alternately, if you are trying to mean it as a series of choices, then you are simply wrong about the rational choice being suboptimal. In series-of-choices games, cooperation is often more profitable than selfishness, and therefore more rational.

Not for the rational self interested person it isn't. Unless you'd be so silly as to introduce communication in the prisoner's dilemma.

Quote:

Snorri wrote:

Or say taxes were voluntary. Obviously taxes give a great benefit to society.

Are you insane? What worse tactic is there than saying "Obviously taxes are great" when we're talking about libertarians? Taxation is not the only way to build roads and schools. And you may not enjoy the benefits of roads and schools if you didn't contribute. This is all based on a huge set of assumptions that don't work in this context.

Yo I didn't say nothing about taxes being the best. I said that they are obviously a great benefit. No Libertarian is going to say that government-provided roads and schools are a negative, just that they are less good than if we were had the free market there.

If you can't deal with the realness then substitute "mutual charity fund for roads and such" instead.

Quote:

Yeah, that's pretty shitty. I would hate to be in that situation.

So what does that have to do with market decisions? Oh, right. You're saying that because some people are forced by some companies to use a product, we should make sure everyone feels the same sting by making the government more oppressive. Got it.

Did I say that? I must've missed it due to it not being something I said.

Are you seriously going to rebuke my points about failures of the market's freedom with "OH I GUESS YOU ARE STALIN THEN!"?

Quote:

Snorri wrote:

They blow off the difficulty of making a market decision but act like it's almost impossible to move to another country.

Moving to another country is often impossible, and it is definitely more difficult than making a market decision.

Yes. Because there are laws against making market decision that difficult.

Or do you think that laws against monopolies are there because the free market really really wanted them?

Quote:

Snorri wrote:

That we moved away from a freer market because it sucked. Minimal government and a super-free market actually made us less free.

Sucked compared to what? Less free than what? And less free how?

And the libertarian response to the freer market sucking is that it sucked because it inherited too many flaws from monarchies, and because you're comparing it to a now wealthier world. Now that technology has vastly improved travel, education and availability of market information, it would work quite a lot better now.

And what stake does the "free market" have in keeping that travel education and assorted nonsense?

I mean, a company obviously does not benefit from your ability to shop around. Companies don't like a competitive market, people do.

I fail to see how this doesnt compel poorer people to use a product from a private company under threat of law.

Who is compelling people to "use the product?" The company, or the government?

The company cannot pass statutory law; the company cannot arrest anyone. Plain and simple.

Even if you wish to consider the alternative I've already detailed to be somehow inapplicable to the masses (although the law applies equally to everyone), no private corporation has the powers of government.

I gotta admit im just fucking with you. See since being a libertarian requires an intellectual or ethical failure on a persons part, i view them as nothing more than shrill annoying twats to be poked on the internet. Carry on you bold libertarian you._________________

Rational actors always make the right decision because rational actors always make the right decision?

Rational actors make the right decision when they have perfect information. When they do not have perfect information, they probably don't.

It's funny that you're calling me tautological, though, when you have declared some choices to be wrong choices, and ignored queries as to why they were wrong. I think you have much bigger definitional issues than I.

Snorri wrote:

So saying: "fuck yall, gonna get my fish" is the right decision or....?

Yes, it is either the right decision or the wrong decision. Wtf?

Snorri wrote:

Look, if you're gonna go with such silliness then what is the point? You don't solve the dilemma of a tragedy of the commons with magic.

First, what silliness? Second, it's not a dilemma, because there are more than two options, which is virtually always the case in the real world, which is one reason the Prisoner's Dilemma is useless as a model for real-life. Third, the solution isn't magic, it's information. I'm sorry scientists are always lying and getting you so pissed you can't distinguish between the two.

Snorri wrote:

Pray tell how the market works then.

So Andrew was right, and you're just being an ass?

The market is continuous. It involves many, many decisions, not just one. Personal history exists, and affects which choices are most successful. A single iteration of the Prisoner's Dilemma is a Very Bad Model for a market.

Snorri wrote:

Not for the rational self interested person it isn't. Unless you'd be so silly as to introduce communication in the prisoner's dilemma.

You are simply wrong. Read the wikipedia section about playing more than one iteration of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The equilibria change, and being selfish is not the most successful strategy. And it has nothing to do with communication. Where the fuck did that come from?

Snorri wrote:

No Libertarian is going to say that government-provided roads and schools are a negative, just that they are less good than if we were had the free market there.

"Less good" is a negative. Every libertarian will say that.

Snorri wrote:

Are you seriously going to rebuke my points about failures of the market's freedom with "OH I GUESS YOU ARE STALIN THEN!"?

You didn't make a point about a failure of market freedom. You made the point that life sucks sometimes. Your harm has nothing to do with the market.

Snorri wrote:

Yes. Because there are laws against making market decision that difficult.

Or do you think that laws against monopolies are there because the free market really really wanted them?

No. Laws against monopolies are not what makes market decisions easier than moving to a new country. The fact that moving to a new country is very, very hard and very, very expensive is what makes market decisions easier than moving to a new country.

I really don't understand how anyone can persist with this equivalence. The two things just ain't the same. They just ain't.

Snorri wrote:

And what stake does the "free market" have in keeping that travel education and assorted nonsense?

I mean, a company obviously does not benefit from your ability to shop around. Companies don't like a competitive market, people do.

What are you even talking about? You said we were better off now that the market was less free. I responded that we are better off now because of technology, and it might have nothing to do with how free the market is. What the fuck does the "free market" having a stake in something have to do with anything?

Snorri wrote:

Who did?

Them._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

Well, most of the people I know that self-identify as libertarians do. Might be a difference of opinion within the group. How exactly would a libertarian justify giving this task to government instead of leaving it to the market ?

"Libertarian" covers a very wide spectrum. Extreme libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) would say they would leave it to the market, and they'd offer the same extreme opinion about all public goods, including roads, law & national defense. Most libertarians are not in this camp. Moderate libertarians justify giving tasks to the government in the same way as everyone else. Individual liberty can be a significant concern, even a primary concern, without being the only concern.

If you believe they'll support something like that then I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just not convinced that the poster-children for small-government will support a 'ministry of information' that is tasked with giving correct information on all kinds of externalities.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

OK, it would sound like something a libertarian would hope for, but even a libertarian would have to concede that it is very unlikely this'll actually work.

I don't think they do. Letting the market correct for pollution seems a lot less extreme than privatising the FDA. The difficulty is that the market decisions have to be based upon good information for it to work, and with so many people convinced that climate change isn't real, it can't.

Pollution isn't something markets correct for. They are externalities, which lead to market failures.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

How are they the same assumption ? Wheels assumption only means that a framework has to be created in which emissions will be reduced (and that framework has to be consistent with libertarian thought).

Wheels didn't ask for a framework. It is weird to me that you gentled the assumption like that. He is asking what libertarians would do, given that they know they must do something. Spreading accurate info and making individual market decisions (Can I afford to buy green? Yes? Then I must do so.) is the most libertarian way to handle it.

Your carbon tax method (which I like, I really really do), to be libertarian, requires good enough information to quantify the damage a factory causes by polluting, so it can charge the polluter the correct fees. If we don't know how much damage there is, but the government enforces a tax anyway, then it is just interfering with the market, and therefore not libertarian.

I really think you misread Wheel's post, but I'm not going to argue the point further until he clarifies. I am going to note that if Wheel's assumption was that people will all voluntarily stop polluting just because they know exactly what the effects of that pollution are (especially in this case, where the effects are most likely for someone halfway across the globe), then his IQ dropped by an estimated 73 points.

Sojobo wrote:

Your carbon tax method (which I like, I really really do), to be libertarian, requires good enough information to quantify the damage a factory causes by polluting, so it can charge the polluter the correct fees. If we don't know how much damage there is, but the government enforces a tax anyway, then it is just interfering with the market, and therefore not libertarian.

Not technically a tax, as government shouldn't be involved. Payments should go straight from those polluting to those receiving negative effects. You are correct that more information would be required, but that's just one of the problems with it. (The large number of polluters and victims, non-linearity of effects of pollution, etc....)

If you believe they'll support something like that then I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just not convinced that the poster-children for small-government will support a 'ministry of information' that is tasked with giving correct information on all kinds of externalities.

The FDA does this sort of thing right now, mandating ingredients lists and nutritional information. Putting the onus on the producer moves the providing information externality internal, and doublechecking instead of measuring and compiling all the info themselves means there's no need for the FDA to bloat to Orwellian proportions.

Bart wrote:

Pollution isn't something markets correct for. They are externalities, which lead to market failures.

Pollution is an externality now. With better information, it doesn't have to be.

Bart wrote:

I am going to note that if Wheel's assumption was that people will all voluntarily stop polluting just because they know exactly what the effects of that pollution are

I can see how my comments are unclear. I didn't mean that Wheels wanted us to assume everyone will do anything we want them to do. I meant only that people will do something, and for libertarians, that something will be whatever action we end up deciding is the most libertarian.

I definitely wasn't assuming that people would stop polluting directly. I was expecting manufacturers to keep on manufacturing, and let the market decide which ones need to reduce their impact, and by how much.

Bart wrote:

Not technically a tax, as government shouldn't be involved. Payments should go straight from those polluting to those receiving negative effects.

Again, I think this depends on how extremist your libertarian is. If he thinks law enforcement should be private, then obviously this must be, too, but if he's fine with limited government, there's no reason he wouldn't be fine with this.

Bart wrote:

You are correct that more information would be required, but that's just one of the problems with it. (The large number of polluters and victims, non-linearity of effects of pollution, etc....)

I think that the number of polluters and victims and the non-linearity of effects are both informational problems._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

If you believe they'll support something like that then I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just not convinced that the poster-children for small-government will support a 'ministry of information' that is tasked with giving correct information on all kinds of externalities.

The FDA does this sort of thing right now, mandating ingredients lists and nutritional information. Putting the onus on the producer moves the providing information externality internal, and doublechecking instead of measuring and compiling all the info themselves means there's no need for the FDA to bloat to Orwellian proportions.

Yes, the FDA does this now and it is limited to a very specific part of all products sold. That is in a society where libertarians are far to the right economically compared to the average person. And yet you think libertarians would be OK with massively expanding this part of government ? I guess I am arguing with you now about what libertarians would say, but I honestly can't see how they reconcile it with their main goal of more personal freedom. I can see that some will allow it despite their libertarianism, but more regulations and bigger government really shouldn't be mentioned when we're looking for the 'libertarian solution' to a problem.

Also, the cost of providing the informations wouldn't be an externality, it would simply be the cost of regulations.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

Pollution isn't something markets correct for. They are externalities, which lead to market failures.

Pollution is an externality now. With better information, it doesn't have to be.

Not sure what you mean here, information alone has nothing to do with whether or not something is an externality. You need good information to take appropriate actions to internalize them, but in itself it doesn't change anything. If you want to give a libertarian solution to the problem you need to find a second step, how to use that better information to get to our goal of reducing pollution.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

I am going to note that if Wheel's assumption was that people will all voluntarily stop polluting just because they know exactly what the effects of that pollution are

I can see how my comments are unclear. I didn't mean that Wheels wanted us to assume everyone will do anything we want them to do. I meant only that people will do something, and for libertarians, that something will be whatever action we end up deciding is the most libertarian.

I definitely wasn't assuming that people would stop polluting directly. I was expecting manufacturers to keep on manufacturing, and let the market decide which ones need to reduce their impact, and by how much.

By what mechanism? Markets need incentives and so far you haven't given any. All I've seen so far is: "If there is good information people will choose the less polluting alternatives", but there is nothing in economic theory that supports this, unless we make one of two very unlikely assumptions. Either the one I mentioned earlier, or we could assume that individuals will take the utility of everyone else into account when making decisions about their own consumption and weigh it equal to their own utility. (The final one isn't really phrased perfectly, but I hope you get the point)

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

Not technically a tax, as government shouldn't be involved. Payments should go straight from those polluting to those receiving negative effects.

Again, I think this depends on how extremist your libertarian is. If he thinks law enforcement should be private, then obviously this must be, too, but if he's fine with limited government, there's no reason he wouldn't be fine with this.

There is a difference between law enforcement and handling of externalities. Law enforcement is needed when someone breaks the law or his contractual obligations, in the particular case of pollution it would be polluting so that someone else's property is harmed without having the right to do so. The problem with externalities is that is unclear whether or not someone has the right to do something or not, because property rights aren't strong enough. There are usually no rules or laws about what I can do on my own property which harm someone else in a very indirect way. A libertarian answer would be to assign these rights to someone. (I've arbitrarily chosen that I'm going to give the right to stop such indirect pollution to those suffering from it, polluters will then pay those suffering for the right to pollute. Theoretically assigning the rights to do so to polluters would work equally well and give a pareto optimal solution, it would mean those suffering would pay polluters to pollute less. (Most of the previous based on the Coase theorem)) Only if these rights are violated after they are established law enforcement would come in.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

You are correct that more information would be required, but that's just one of the problems with it. (The large number of polluters and victims, non-linearity of effects of pollution, etc....)

I think that the number of polluters and victims and the non-linearity of effects are both informational problems.

Non-linearity might be overcome in a very simple externality problem, but it will complicate negotiations. Couple that with the fact that every polluter will have to negotiate with millions of people that will be harmed all of which are in concurrent negotiations with hundreds of thousands of polluters and it is clear that a market based solution to this kind of problem is highly infeasible.

Taxes will work in solving the problem, but they will distort markets (not something libertarians like).

Pssh! Libertarian's too mainstream for me; I'm an exclusive-anarchist. I believe that I, and only I, should be able to do whatever the hell I want._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

And yet you think libertarians would be OK with massively expanding this part of government ?

I think that respect for markets correlates with condemning fraud, and the more respect a person has for markets, the more heinous they will find that crime. If we recognise the costs of pollution (by whatever division of rights we end up with), it is an act of fraud for a producer to conceal how much pollution they cause.

Bart wrote:

I can see that some will allow it despite their libertarianism

I think that improvements in market information must be a central goal of any advocate of personal freedom. How can you make a free market choice if you don't know what you're buying? Of course it is a bummer that defense against fraud requires government, but it is the same bummer regarding the need for defense against other kinds of theft, and other crimes.

Bart wrote:

Also, the cost of providing the informations wouldn't be an externality, it would simply be the cost of regulations.

Of course. Sorry. I couldn't get it to say quite what I wanted and rephrased it a couple of times. It looks like I got stuck midway.

Bart wrote:

Not sure what you mean here, information alone has nothing to do with whether or not something is an externality. You need good information to take appropriate actions to internalize them, but in itself it doesn't change anything.

I think "it doesn't have to be" clues that I didn't mean it as direct/automatic as you are taking it. I meant it as you are saying, "with better information, actions can be taken to internalise the costs of pollution, and so pollution doesn't have to be an externality."

Bart wrote:

By what mechanism? Markets need incentives and so far you haven't given any. All I've seen so far is: "If there is good information people will choose the less polluting alternatives", but there is nothing in economic theory that supports this, unless we make one of two very unlikely assumptions. Either the one I mentioned earlier, or we could assume that individuals will take the utility of everyone else into account when making decisions about their own consumption and weigh it equal to their own utility. (The final one isn't really phrased perfectly, but I hope you get the point)

I am mainly saying that if there is better information, people will make better choices. But yes, I absolutely do assume that individuals will take the utility of others into account. I just as absolutely do not think they weigh it equal to their own, and don't require it. Any weight at all means the incentive is there. Some (I think many) will choose the less polluting alternative.

Bart wrote:

There is a difference between law enforcement and handling of externalities. Law enforcement is needed when someone breaks the law or his contractual obligations, in the particular case of pollution it would be polluting so that someone else's property is harmed without having the right to do so.

I am not quite talking about the legality of polluting, but rather the legality of concealing how much pollution you create. Putting peanuts or shellfish into your product isn't illegal, but concealing that fact is. Or maybe - it is not illegal to make a champagne-style drink that isn't from Champagne, but it's illegal to conceal the source.

Bart wrote:

Theoretically assigning the rights to do so to polluters would work equally well

I do not think this is true. It seems like it would encourage non-polluters to start polluting, in order to get paid by people who don't want them to pollute.

Bart wrote:

Non-linearity might be overcome in a very simple externality problem, but it will complicate negotiations. Couple that with the fact that every polluter will have to negotiate with millions of people that will be harmed all of which are in concurrent negotiations with hundreds of thousands of polluters and it is clear that a market based solution to this kind of problem is highly infeasible.

If you're giving up on your solution, then mine is the most libertarian solution left standing by default. *claims prize*_________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

And yet you think libertarians would be OK with massively expanding this part of government ?

I think that respect for markets correlates with condemning fraud, and the more respect a person has for markets, the more heinous they will find that crime. If we recognise the costs of pollution (by whatever division of rights we end up with), it is an act of fraud for a producer to conceal how much pollution they cause.

Bart wrote:

I can see that some will allow it despite their libertarianism

I think that improvements in market information must be a central goal of any advocate of personal freedom. How can you make a free market choice if you don't know what you're buying? Of course it is a bummer that defense against fraud requires government, but it is the same bummer regarding the need for defense against other kinds of theft, and other crimes.

I think it's important to note that it would be fraud to misrepresent the amount of pollution one produces if there is regulation about it, or there are contracts with other parties that involve the amount of pollution. However, as far as I can tell you don't have anything like that in your proposal and it is not fraud if you simply don't mention something about your products. So the government doesn't have to step in to fight 'fraud' under your proposal.

You can also make a free-market decision without having full information. Sometimes it's the better option to go ahead with less information then it is to spend a lot of money on it. Of course free markets are most efficient with full information, but it's not a prerequisite for one. The question would be what a person values most, the most efficient market possible or the one with the most freedom.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

Not sure what you mean here, information alone has nothing to do with whether or not something is an externality. You need good information to take appropriate actions to internalize them, but in itself it doesn't change anything.

I think "it doesn't have to be" clues that I didn't mean it as direct/automatic as you are taking it. I meant it as you are saying, "with better information, actions can be taken to internalise the costs of pollution, and so pollution doesn't have to be an externality."

Bart wrote:

By what mechanism? Markets need incentives and so far you haven't given any. All I've seen so far is: "If there is good information people will choose the less polluting alternatives", but there is nothing in economic theory that supports this, unless we make one of two very unlikely assumptions. Either the one I mentioned earlier, or we could assume that individuals will take the utility of everyone else into account when making decisions about their own consumption and weigh it equal to their own utility. (The final one isn't really phrased perfectly, but I hope you get the point)

I am mainly saying that if there is better information, people will make better choices. But yes, I absolutely do assume that individuals will take the utility of others into account. I just as absolutely do not think they weigh it equal to their own, and don't require it. Any weight at all means the incentive is there. Some (I think many) will choose the less polluting alternative.

If that is what you assume, then perfect information would lead us closer to solving the pollution problem (closer, but not quite there yet, weighting everyone else's utility equal to your own is required to get a pareto optimal solution). It's a very optimistic assumption though.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

There is a difference between law enforcement and handling of externalities. Law enforcement is needed when someone breaks the law or his contractual obligations, in the particular case of pollution it would be polluting so that someone else's property is harmed without having the right to do so.

I am not quite talking about the legality of polluting, but rather the legality of concealing how much pollution you create. Putting peanuts or shellfish into your product isn't illegal, but concealing that fact is. Or maybe - it is not illegal to make a champagne-style drink that isn't from Champagne, but it's illegal to conceal the source.

As you could see earlier in this post, my definition of fraud is a bit stricter. You're free to give as little information about your product as you want, but as long as it's not incorrect it's not fraud. (Personally I am pro-laws that require a minimum of information like ingredient lists, but I wouldn't call breaking such a law fraud.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

Theoretically assigning the rights to do so to polluters would work equally well

I do not think this is true. It seems like it would encourage non-polluters to start polluting, in order to get paid by people who don't want them to pollute.

That's why I say theoretically, it depends on how you assign the rights to pollute exactly, what happens with regulation already in place ..... In practice there would be heaps of problems to iron out.

Sojobo wrote:

Bart wrote:

Non-linearity might be overcome in a very simple externality problem, but it will complicate negotiations. Couple that with the fact that every polluter will have to negotiate with millions of people that will be harmed all of which are in concurrent negotiations with hundreds of thousands of polluters and it is clear that a market based solution to this kind of problem is highly infeasible.

If you're giving up on your solution, then mine is the most libertarian solution left standing by default. *claims prize*

I was only looking at 'solutions' that libertarians might put forward, but I don't believe a libertarian solution to this problem exists. Your solution is only borderline libertarian and it hinges on the assumption that people will pollute less because they care so much for others, so I highly doubt it would work.

i would really like to meet the libertarian who simply mooches off other people as a protest against taxation

the force of their internal contradiction would be able to warp space and time, or you could see the Higgs boson when they moved, or something

Best comment as to why there is no clear Libertarian agenda or platform.

************************

THY: THANK YOU FOR POSTING LINKS, NOT WALLS OF TEXT! I'M SO EXCITED I'M SCREAMING!_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake